[SGVLUG] archives??? since when?

[Emerson, Tom]

> -----Original Message-----
> Behalf Of Hershel Remer
> 
> Our friend Tom provides:
> 
> > http://www.sgvlug.net/pipermail/sgvlug/2005-June/000015.html
> 

wherein the text of the "welcome to the list" message is finalized -- interesting how you chose to snip that fact from the discussion. (and even more interesting since you didn't use the common courtesy of an indicator such as ..., [...], <snip>, <skipped>, or any similar device to indicate that the original poster had indeed provided additional information -- fortunately, that sort of stuff is in the archive)

> I don't recall reading any of those, but those aren't MEMOs.  
> A memo would be [...]

Point made -- true, in retrospect it wasn't done quite as well as it should (but then, how often in the course of normal human endeavours does "everything go well"?) 

> > while I rarely use them, I do find them to be of value -- 
> note how I was able
> > to research how and when we "told" you that the posts were 
> going to be
> > archived from now on :)

(hmmm... forgot the "<ironic satire>" tags for that, sorry )

> Ah, but you could do the same thing by using Mutt on your own 
> mailbox or even
> subscribing a gmail or yahoo or hotmail account to the list.

That reminds me -- I do have a backlog of some 6000+ posts to the SGVLUG list from when I joined, I was considering posting them to the archive (which really and truly would be "retroactively") since outside of perhaps David Lawyer or Bob Jaffrey, I'm not aware of too many others who would have this resource at their disposal.  (but then, you'd get to read about how my systems have been hacked, yet I go on divulging security advice in a do-what-I-say-not-what-I-do manner)

On the other hand, there may be a dozen or more people who've been members of this list for quite some time -- in fact, there may be people who've never attended a meeting -- and unless they speak up, we'll never know if they have kept an archive of posts or not.  Any one of them could indeed provide what they've collected, intentionally or otherwise, in some public manner.  [but that gets into "slippery slope" problems of the privacy of widely/semi-publicly distributed messages]

Of course, this whole discussion is already sliding down one such slope -- things are hard to undo, and the internet never forgets...